Aren't the sheep the people that read articles online saying that 4K isn't worth it, and conclude that they must be right without having done the comparisons themselves?
Almost everything I read online about 4K is telling me not to buy it.

Aren't the sheep the people that read articles online saying that 4K isn't worth it, and conclude that they must be right without having done the comparisons themselves?
Almost everything I read online about 4K is telling me not to buy it.

This is the third time in the last few weeks, yesterday as I was walking in to Sam's club, I had another look at UHD/4K. They have 65 inch LG 4K set on the display with 1080's on both sides and under. One more time I backed away increasing my distance from 4 feet to 12+ and there is a very noticeable difference. That being almost as great as the 480i SD to the 720P/1080i of a decade ago. What it looked like to me was the picture is painted on the underside of the screen, and this thing was only 4500, in the range of the top end or the LCD/LED of just a few years ago. I won't need to replace anything for a few years but I can tell you that by the time I do my hunch is 4K well be the industry standers the 1080P is to day. Seeing is believing, and I believe.

I could post a dozen links and I didn't have to search for them all saying the same thing.

You need a very large tv to see any difference in 4k and then have your nose on it to tell the difference.

I went and did side by side comparison for myself which backs up all the industry experts..............

When you have a majority of people saying the same thing about lack of content and content delivery issues and

the fact you can't tell the difference unless your 2 FEET from the set like Consumer Reports said in their review

then you have what is called a CONSENSUS. Then when you back it up with your own eyes it would be considered

a fact in most people's world.

You guys can complain and bitch....all you like..........ARTWOOD is right on this issue.

Now go along little sheep and buy what they tell you to..........

I find the statement about content and delivery interesting, same one as the argument over 480 to 720/1080 from way back. Its been several years now that the HiDef format is the standard. The next generation is up on us.

When you have a majority of people saying the same thing about lack of content and content delivery issues and
the fact you can't tell the difference unless your 2 FEET from the set like Consumer Reports said in their review
then you have what is called a CONSENSUS. Then when you back it up with your own eyes it would be considered
a fact in most people's world.

Compared to the image on a 1080p TV, the same content upconverted to 4K gives you most of the benefits we saw with the true 4K image, minus the extra detail. When displayed on the 4K screen, the finest details in the HD image were better resolved, with edges that were visibly smoother and less jagged than on the HDTV’s coarser 1080p pixel grid. And I saw no obvious upconversion artifacts to speak of, which demonstrates that the benefits of an Ultra HD TV's higher pixel density can still be appreciated even without true 4K content to watch.

Looking at the upconverted images (photos 4 and 8) and comparing them to the HD versions (photos 3 and 7) and true 4K versions (photo 2 and 6), you'll see that while they don't recover all the detail shown in the 4K photos, you do get a smoother, less-coarse image and slightly better detail than you'd see on a regular HDTV.

The image quality of film-based movies often depends on the type of film stock used, which in turn can affect picture detail and the level of film grain present.

The first thing that grabbed my attention was the quality of opening title sequences and graphics, where the edge detail of text rendered in 4K was razor sharp, to a level that just can’t be achieved with 1080p. Whether I was watching the “Eldorado” clip, the “Bucket” music video from Annah Mac, or any of the short movie videos, it was evident I was experiencing something new and special. With this type of content, Ultra HD image quality is simply stunning, revealing a depth of detail and texture that’s unprecedented for home video. Colors were vibrant, with an intensity that never looked false, and subtle shades revealed no hint of banding or compression-based noise.

I also didn’t see any aliasing or moiré (false patterns) on complex fine detail. In short, the picture was as seamless as a projected film, with no visible clues that I was actually watching video. In my opinion, 4K videos are the real showcase for what Ultra HD can deliver, with cleaner, better detail than I saw with the film-based movies.

That Ultra HD can yield better picture quality than HD is indisputable, and it can help HD programs look better, too. But to best appreciate this benefit you'll either have to slide your sofa very close to the screen, or go for the largest Ultra HD display you can get your hands on. Either way you'll dish out a premium—often considerable—for the privilege, and still have no native 4K content to watch (unless of course you go the Sony route).

But when UHD prices drop to near HD levels—and you know they will—and 4K content becomes widely available, the choice will be simple: Go Ultra.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jetmeck

Now go along little sheep and buy what they tell you to..........

Quote:

Originally Posted by Artwood

There are many people that post here that do not have ANY ability to resolve--they are the ones who love LCD!

I can’t find any relevance to either of those statements. Condescending arrogance – most definitely.

If you listened to the top 100 calibrators in the world and they ALL said that LCD sucked would those be arrogant comments?

Would those 100 calibrators be sheep?

Would their comments be relevant?

What would be the difference between Artwood saying that you needed AT LEAST a 110 inch display at 9 feet versus the top 100 calibrators of the world saying the same thing--oh yeah--that's right--the display manufacturers would make sure that the top 100 calibrators in the world would never be able to be quoted with such comments.

It doesn't matter WHO says the truth--the truth is always THE TRUTH!

But all you edge lit 4K LCD still sucks as always lackeys can't HANDLE THE TRUTH!

Wax poetic as the state of the art when it comes to LCD continues to de-evolve and deform.

More resolution as Tony the Tiger says is GRRREAT!

Everything else about the picture SUCKS MORE!

Get back to me when the rest of the picture destroys yesteryear's Sharp Elite's --until then sell to the Real Sheep!

As I walked into Sam's Club Monday afternoon I stopped and looked again at the 65inch LG 4K and there was a line down the center of the screen with 1080 on the right and 4K on the left. There was not a lot of difference but it was there. Remembering that it was upscaling to the 4K from 1080 I was impressed. As I stood back and recalled I guessed the distance to be 12+ on another post I now have guess closer to 15 feet I did not see any deference from the left to the right on the 4K but the 1080 sounding it looked just a little dull, and all the 1080's were running the same demo disc. The 4K line up is going to replace 1080, for sure.

As for the Beta/VHS fight, were was I 1985, the Plasma/LED, it appears that the money spenders have picked a winner, LED/LCD. It's not just the picture that is shoveling dirt into the grave, but very soon it well. Back in the Beta/VHS fight the Beta was the best picture, and then they went to super beta that was even better, but the VHS formate was adding new technology that was improving it, and in the end VHS was out pacing Beta and Beta died.
Plasma started better but the LCD formate closed the gap and in a very short time now, I forgot it happen already, plasma is going to be and historic foot note in technology as Beta and VHS. What is the saying The King is Died, long live the King, Thats the New King. As for the 100, I think I well believe my own lying eyes and not fallow the hundred of the cliffs like a bunch of lemmings, with praise for the died King when the new King has the money spenders spending money for pro calibrators.

As for the Beta/VHS fight, were was I 1985, the Plasma/LED, it appears that the money spenders have picked a winner, LED/LCD. It's not just the picture that is shoveling dirt into the grave, but very soon it well. Back in the Beta/VHS fight the Beta was the best picture, and then they went to super beta that was even better, but the VHS formate was adding new technology that was improving it, and in the end VHS was out pacing Beta and Beta died.
Plasma started better but the LCD formate closed the gap and in a very short time now, I forgot it happen already, plasma is going to be and historic foot note in technology as Beta and VHS. What is the saying The King is Died, long live the King, Thats the New King. As for the 100, I think I well believe my own lying eyes and not fallow the hundred of the cliffs like a bunch of lemmings, with praise for the died King when the new King has the money spenders spending money for pro calibrators.

VHS won primarily because the larger VHS tapes could hold more content than Betamax. Blank tapes were expensive and being able to store more per $ was enough to tip the scales in its favor. Also, Sony was the only manufacturer of Betamax and their camcorders were way overpriced.

I think this is the same reason LCD (is beating/has beaten) plasma. You can buy a 50" lcd for $700. I would guess screen size is the most important metric for most when buying a TV.

3D TV shipments totaled 41.45 million units last year, compared with 24.14 million units in 2011, according to the data by DisplaySearch. The figure marks a nearly 18-fold growth from 2.26 million units in 2010, when the market researcher began compiling the data.

Oh by the way--Betamax always had better picture quality than VHS--the masses always vote for the WORSE product!

Not according to wikipedia, once they changed the speed to match VHS. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Videotape_format_war - I don't think a format that would only be able to store half a film would be a superior product.
And Blu-ray isn't a worse product than HD DVD in terms of the picture quality it's capable of.

VHS won primarily because the larger VHS tapes could hold more content than Betamax. Blank tapes were expensive and being able to store more per $ was enough to tip the scales in its favor. Also, Sony was the only manufacturer of Betamax and their camcorders were way overpriced.

I think this is the same reason LCD (is beating/has beaten) plasma. You can buy a 50" lcd for $700. I would guess screen size is the most important metric for most when buying a TV.

I could look it up but I think the VHS tapes had 3 deferent recording times 2/4/6 hours, the longer the time the worse the picture. Bata did somewhat the same thing but not as long. The best picture was the 2 hour SuperBate until the VHS recorders got better and by that time Sony and Sanyo were out of the market and left it to JVC and all the others selling there tech. The real problem with BetaMax was sony wanted to much money for other manufactures to build them, and JVC with the VHS tape and tech was FREE. So if you want into the business its was big bucks for Beta licensing and free for VHS.

Nothing like that going on in todays TV land, The winers as of now are Blu ray, LED/LCD and Dolby. Have to see what this year brings, 4K up 1080 down, sound that goes up and down not just front to back, side to side. In ten years, may be less there well be holograms like in the first STARWARS in1976. If you are not a happy camper with todays stuff see if you can find a 17inch black and white with a set of rabbit ears, bet that as much fun as anything.

Oh by the way--Betamax always had better picture quality than VHS--the masses always vote for the WORSE product!

Not according to wikipedia, once they changed the speed to match VHS. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Videotape_format_war - I don't think a format that would only be able to store half a film would be a superior product.
And Blu-ray isn't a worse product than HD DVD in terms of the picture quality it's capable of.

There is no "according to wikipedia". "According to wikipedia" is the same as "according to Bubba from Kansas" or "according to a bunch of unknown folks that can make anonymous edits or cite references that say something different from what it's purported to say".

Thought #AYA: Porn gives young people an unhealthy and unrealistic idea of how quickly a plumber will come to your house.

There is no "according to wikipedia". "According to wikipedia" is the same as "according to Bubba from Kansas" or "according to a bunch of unknown folks that can make anonymous edits or cite references that say something different from what it's purported to say".

I don't read wikiwhat I would like to think my memory from those days is pretty fair. Sony's Betamax was the first in the market, then came VHS from JVC, or maybe Toshiba. What happened was one of the 2 were going to or wanted use the Sony tech but ran into the Hi fees Sony wanted. They just went right on and developed there own and made the fee free for any company that wanted to build VHS boxes. The rental market was had become BIG in "them there" days and the Studios were putting out movies for both. The numbers for the VHS soared and the Studios dropped Bate but not all at once. I remembered that at the end prerecord Beta Movies were going for half a buck. The thing that Bate did so well was copy other bate tapes and what was called time shift. There was one other thing that Bate did was record sound because the sound tracks were laid down by the Hi speed revolving recording heads. The VHS sound tracks were laid down by heads that worked the same as any other recorder, strait on through with stationary heads.
Thats not a lot deferent from the Blu ray / HD disk selection, one is king and the other gone and I am sure there was not a lot of deference.

We use cookies to improve your experience on this website and so that ads you see online can be tailored to your online browsing interests. We use data about you for a number of purposes explained in the links below. By continuing to browse our site you agree to our use of data and cookies.Tell me more | Cookie Preferences